Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes:
> On 15/07/08 at 14:01 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> Xen is just one solution to virtualisation. I may agree that a general
>> decision to support virtualisation on Debian could be a policy decision, but
>> whether we'll support one specific technology, for which there are many
>> alternatives, is very much a technical decision. Does it work, can we get it
>> to work and do we have the people to keep it work after release?
>
> Debian supported Xen in etch. Which of the "many alternatives" should
> Debian recommend to its users currently running a Debian dom0 in
> paravirt mode?
Isn't the policy decision in question here to only have one kernel
source in a release?
> I don't think that any of the alternatives are valid candidates yet:
> - Linux-Vserver, OpenVZ: clearly not the same use case.
> - Virtualbox, qemu: poor performance under some workloads.
Unusable for production work. Emulation is just too slow. The group of
people that can live with that much slow down compared to xen is
miniscule.
> - KVM: is very promising but is it really a valid alternative *now*
> for current Xen users?
KVM needs hardware support and even then its I/O is slower. It also
deadlocks the I/O under I/O load from time to time.
I could live with the I/O slowdown but nothing will make hardware
magically appear.
> This might change in a few months, of course, but in a few months lenny
> will be released. ;-)
MfG
Goswin